Hashim Yeop Sani SCJ:

The issue in this appeal is confined to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of ss. 3, 4 and 12 of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (the Ordinance).

The respondent was first arrested by the police on 1 October 1986 for alleged involvement in secret society activities. He was then remanded in custody under s. 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code for 14 days pursuant to an order made by a Magistrate. He was released on 14 October 1986 but on the same date he was rearrested and detained under s. 3 of the Ordinance and a copy of the reasons for the arrest was served on him. The specific reasons for the arrest were set out as:

(a) Bahawa beliau adalah seorang ahli dalam kumpulan haram/kongsi gelap,

(b) Bahawa beliau terlibat dalam kegiatan-kegiatan yang mengancam ketenteraman awam,

(c) Bahawa beliau melakukan kesalahan-kesalahan jenayah yang bercorak kekerasan,

(d) Bahawa saya mempercayai ada alasan-alasan untuk menahan beliau di bawah Sek. 4(1) Ordinan (Ketenteraman Awam dan Mencegah Jenayah) Daharurat 5/69.

A person arrested and detained pending enquiries under s. 3 of the Ordinance may be detained in police custody for a period not exceeding 60 days. In respect of the respondent the period of 60 days expired on 13 December 1986. He was however detained in the Muar police station until some time in the morning of 16 December 1986 when he was removed to Pulau Jerejak Rehabilitation Centre pursuant to a detention order made by the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs pursuant to s. 4(1) of the Ordinance.

The order was to take effect from 12 December 1986 and a copy of the order was served on the respondent on 14 December 1986.

The relevant part of the detention order read as follows:

Oleh yang demikian, pada menjalankan kuasa yang diberi kepada saya di bawah seksyen 4(1) Ordinan Darurat (Ketenteraman Awam dan Mencegah Jenayah), 1969, maka saya mengarahkan dengan perintah ini supaya orang yang namanya tersebut di atas ditahan selama dua tahn mulai dari 12 haribulan Disember 1986 di Pusat Pemulihan Akhlak, Pulau Jerejak atau di mana-mana tempat lain sebagaimana yang diarah oleh saya dari semasa ke semasa.

The detention order stated that the Minister was satisfied that with the view to preventing the respondent from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order it was necessary that the respondent should be detained. An attempt in the Court below to question whether there was reasonable cause to make the detention order and the protestation of innocence of the respondent were correctly rejected by the trial Judge applying Karam Singh v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri [1969] 1 MLJ 129.

At the conclusion of the hearing however the learned Judge made a formal order granting habeas corpus to the respondent based on his finding that the respondent's detention at the Muar police station from 14 December 1986 until 16 December 1986 was unauthorised and illegal. The issue now is whether this conclusion of the trial Judge is justified by the proper construction of ss. 3, 4 and 12 of the Ordinance.

Any police officer may under s. 3 of the Ordinance without a warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom the police officer has reason to believe that there are grounds which would justify a person's detention under s. 4 of the Ordinance. A person arrested and detained under s. 3 may be detained in police custody for a period not exceeding 60 days before a detention order is made against him under s. 4(1) of the Ordinance. Section 4 of the Ordinance provides that if the Minister is satisfied that with the view to preventing any person from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order it is necessary that the person should be detained the Minister shall make a detention order directing that a person be detained for a period not exceeding two years.

Section 4(2) of the Ordinance expressly provides that every person detained pursuant to a detention o